In this rejoinder, we provide a historical overview of the emerging critiques of the L2 Motivational Self System and examine the structural and conceptual factors that have perpetuated these unresolved issues. As our analysis shows, a core concern is that the L2 Motivational Self System lacks clear falsifiability criteria, making it difficult to evaluate or revise in light of contradictory evidence. Despite numerous inconsistent or null findings, there appears to be no threshold at which core assumptions are reconsidered. We argue that advancing the field requires a renewed commitment to falsifiability, where constructs are subjected to empirical scrutiny and can, in principle, be shown to be wrong. Beyond technical matters, we acknowledge the emotional and professional challenges involved in confronting evidence that undermines familiar frameworks. We advocate for a shift toward greater theoretical precision, methodological transparency, and openness to critique.

In recent years, the L2 Motivational Self System has faced increasing scrutiny over its theoretical clarity and empirical rigor. One element of this model, the L2 Learning Experience, remains ambiguously defined and theoretically underdeveloped. This study examined the content validity of the L2 Learning Experience scale and its potential overlap with intrinsic motivation, a cornerstone of self-determination theory. Using a panel of experts, we assessed to what extent items traditionally associated with the L2 Learning Experience scale align with their intended construct. Findings revealed that the items were predominantly identified as intrinsic motivation, not the L2 Learning Experience. These results suggest a significant overlap between the two constructs and raise concerns about a potential jangle fallacy. Our results also underscore the need for greater theoretical and terminological clarity in the field. Aligning language learning motivation research with broader psychological frameworks could lead to more parsimonious and robust theoretical models.

Al-Hoorie, Hiver, and In’nami (2024) offer compelling arguments for why L2 motivational self-system research is currently in a state of validation crisis. Seeking a constructive resolution to the crisis, in this response we argue that two fundamental conditions are needed for the field to emerge stronger: psychological readiness and methodological maturity. For psychological readiness, we call for a reframing of the “crisis” narrative. We highlight the need to value controversy, to normalize failure and (self-)correction, and to resist the allure of novelty. For methodological maturity, we suggest that an argument-based approach to validation can provide a constructive solution to current controversies. We present an integrated framework that can guide systematic validation efforts, and we demonstrate its application using a recent validation study as an example.